[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210208164639.GB365765@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2021 08:46:39 -0800
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@...nel.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v1 05/26] x86/traps: Add #VE support for TDX guest
> > > So what happens if NMI happens here, and triggers a nested #VE ?
> >
> > Yes that's a gap. We should probably bail out and reexecute the original
> > instruction. The VE handler would need to set a flag for that.
> >
> > Or alternatively the NMI always gets the VE information and puts
> > it on some internal stack, but that would seem clunkier.
>
> The same is possible with MCE and #DB I imagine.
I don't think there are currently any plans to inject #MC into TDX guests. It's
doubtful this could be done securely.
#DB is trickier because it will happen every time, so simply reexecuting
won't work. I guess it would need the ve info stack, or some care in kprobes/kernel
debugger that it cannot happen. I think I would prefer the later.
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists